Arizona Politicians Scramble To Adjust Internet Censorship Bill After The Internet Mocks Them For Being Clueless

from the this-won't-end-well dept

You know what's a bad sign? When you're a state legislature, and you pass what's clearly an unconstitutional law that criminalizes using technology to "annoy or offend" others -- and then you have to scramble after-the-fact to amend the bill you already passed. Yes, thanks to a rather loud public mocking of Arizona politicians for ignoring the First Amendment in its internet censorship bill, the Arizona legislature is trying to amend the bill quickly.

Here's a thought, though: if you passed a bill so bad that people around the globe are mocking you, perhaps it suggests you don't know what you're doing. At that point, shouldn't you back away from mucking with the internet, and leave that to the professionals who actually understand technology? Somehow, diving back in and pretending that this time you'll get it right doesn't inspire confidence. And, in fact, the details suggest that any amendments considered at this point will almost certainly still be First Amendment violations.

“Even so narrowed, the statute is unconstitutional. You simply cannot prohibit emails that are said to be intended to offend. That violates the First Amendment flat out,” said University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone, who specializes in constitutional law. “You can prohibit email if the recipient has requested you to stop sending them. That’s different -- but that’s not what this says.”

Still, I think the most ridiculous words of all come from Rep. Steve Farley from Phoenix whose statement on the bill is really quite stunning:

"I know people are focusing on unintended consequences of the bill, but I don’t think that's realistic," Farley said. "I think this is a wakeup call that we should be civil online and in society in general. I don’t think it's right we should ever be able to threaten violence against each other online."

I love how he doesn't explain why the unintended consequences aren't "realistic." He just insists that's the case. Of course, anyone who's actually been around policymaking (especially when it comes to technology) knows that there are always unintended consequences. And it's not hard to find unintended consequences of a bill like this that broadly outlaws "annoying" people with electronic devices.

But even more ridiculous is that second half. You don't legislate civility. We don't make a law saying you have to say "please" and "thank you." Look, some people are obnoxious jerks out there. That's not a legislative problem. Finally, his claim that people shouldn't be able to threaten violence against each other might have some weight if the bill was actually limited to people threatening violence. But it's not.

Ummmm

"How do people like this get elected?"

They make sure they are in tight with as many of the local churches as possible and they state how they will uphold and fight for morality when elected. They promise a return to family values and anything else the congregation wants imposed on all the sinners and evil doers. Remember that faith doesn't require rationality (but rather abhors it).

Suppressing Freedom of Speech is "Annoying"

Internet decency laws are solutions looking for problems and a gross violation of Freedom of Speech. These statutes have absolutely NO affect on cyber-bullying and only serve to be a lightning-rod for the ACLU and other watchdog groups, wasting taxpayers’ time and money to no avail. A similar law was passed just last summer here in Tennessee, which I responded to with a “potentially offensive” portrait of our Governor Bill Haslam and his First Lady to bring attention to the issue on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/07/potentially-offensive-portrait-governor.html To date, not a single charge has been filed enforcing this frivolous and dangerous law including myself.

they get elected because of how dumb they are. they dont have a clue about anything. that makes it easy for certain corporations/ industries/individuals to stick a hand up their back and work them like the puppets they are! the frightening thing is that all the fuck ups they make affect thousands of people and trying to justify those fuck ups with complete bull shit just makes them look worse! best choice is to get the hell out of politics before someone really takes offense at what they are doing!

Re:

...

... not to mention that it has been illegal to threaten violence online since before there was an "online" with which to threaten people. (18 USC 875 - threats in interstate commerce [just try to send an email without it crossing a state line]; http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/41/875)

By grandstanding exactly like this. They'll say "This is a problem and I did something when no-one else would!", get reelected, then later comes the benchslap. Same as with all the laws passed against violent video games and then struck down by the courts.

The scary thing is that one of these days some legislators will go further and start complaining about how all their good deeds keep getting undone by pesky judges and that pesky First Amendment and introduce the Fortieth Amendment to repeal free speech...calling it the Protect America from Bullying, Violence, and Cyberterror Act or whatever.

Re: Re: Three Stages of Political Thinking

Yay! The end to electronic annoyance!

I love this bill!

Now I can sue all those telemarketers who use the electronics of the phone system to call me. And I can sue all those companies who spam me. An I can sue all those politicians who captured my name from petitions or donation forms and are spamming me.

And I can sue all of the companies who advertise on TV, because they are using electronics to show me things I find offensive, like crappy McDonald's food and diamonds and beer buddies. And I can sue advertisers on websites, because I find their ads offensive when their graphics slow down my browsing.

Wow.

"How do people like this get elected?"
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, is my guess. Enough voters in AZ are victims of mommies drinking the fetus into a stupor that they elect these Drunken Fetus Babies into office.

"I don’t think it's right we should ever be able to threaten violence against each other online."

I think its perfectly acceptable in a sitution where a government or corporation has become so complacent that, when they ask you to jump, they expect us to say, how high.

I dont see a free and open FUTURE with that kind of mentality, and as much as i feel violence should never be used, in some cases its the only path thats been left, as seen by some of the uprisings these past months

Re: Re: Guess it makes sense now

Not for nothing, but that is how pregnancy works. When a woman says she's 3 months pregnant, she and her doctor are counting from the last day of her last cycle. I don't agree with the bill, but at least they are using the same metric that OBGYNs use.

Its a great bill!

Re:

scientist here.

from a purely technical viewpoint, a woman IS pregnant between 1-3 weeks before conception.

everything is set up and waiting for the sperm to enter the field. if they don't show for whatever reason, the womans body will abort what it set up, flushing everything down the vagina . thats called a period.

Re: Re:

A female is not pregnant until conception. Period. That is the "technical viewpoint". And, it's the viewpoint a biologist would have.

Obviously your claim of being a "scientist" is either wrong or your field is something other than biology. (Maybe basket weaving?) My guess is that you are no scientist. I have my doubts that anyone well versed in science would use the term "period" to refer to menstruation.

Re: Ummmm

'course, they do the same or equivalent for every special interest group who's members are likely to vote in large numbers and any corporation or business etc likely to be willing to br... err... sorry... contribute to their campaign funds.

politicians, you know.

(here abouts, they instead have blatantly corrupt opinion polls run as news as if they were fact to discourage their opponent's supporters from voting while offering unsuportable tax cuts... heck, the current lot won the election that put them in power by promising Not to carry out their unpopular policies (that were pretty much inevitably going to happen eventually due to being fundamental to their 'more money in our pockets' ideology) which is stupid because they only promised not to do that for One term, and if you get a first term you're pretty much garanteed a second due to the weird nature of the electorate here unless you screw up most royally. a combination of that fact and the blatant propaganda campaign pretending to be reporting on the elections (those corrupt polls and onesided reports again) got them in a second time despite This time making the single most hated thing in NZ politics (government selling vital infrastructure and revenue streams to foreign interests, for the short version) the most visable part of their campaign platform. squeeked in with EXACTLY 50%+1 seats after adding in the one seat the only party willing to form a coalition with them in light of the poison that is that platform managed to get. had they got even one seat less we might have seen the, otherwise insane sounding and highly unlikely, outcome of EVERY other party forming a coalition to keep them out. ... it was that unpopular. 1/4th of the eligable voters did not vote, incidentally, so any claim that they have a mandate for such activity dies quickly)

Arizona

This state is becoming so crazy that I fear to go there. The cops do racial profiling, don't accept out-of-state ID, can demand papers from anyone, and can jail you if they think you are an illegal alien. Now this? How do the people elect such idiots? Are the business backers sitting at the polling sites and giving people $5 each for their votes? Isn't that illegal?

civility

The first amendment is a foundation of American civility - more so than any bill regulating online etiquette. It is bizarre to think civility would be advanced by compromising a guarantor of free speech.